Justice Department Seeks to Disqualify Two Minnesota Federal Judges Over Press Comments

The Justice Department has moved to disqualify two federal judges in Minnesota from presiding over separate immigration cases, arguing that public comments they made to the media demonstrate a lack of impartiality regarding the Trump administration’s enforcement efforts.

The disqualification requests target U.S. District Judges Patrick Schiltz and John Tunheim. Both motions were filed on Tuesday by Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, marking an expansion of the administration’s ongoing friction with federal jurists handling immigration litigation.

The filings stem from statements the judges made for an article published last month. In that reporting, both Schiltz and Tunheim expressed concerns about the administration’s handling of cases arising from an immigration enforcement operation in Minnesota earlier this year known as Operation Metro Surge.

In the case assigned to Schiltz, the government is attempting to strip a Minnesota man of his U.S. citizenship. In the second matter, overseen by Tunheim, a South African national faces two charges of illegally voting in the 2024 election and has entered a plea of not guilty.

In the motion regarding Schiltz, Woodward argued that a judge who has commented publicly on immigration enforcement cannot fairly preside over what he termed the largest denaturalization effort in the department’s history. Woodward asserted that the public would reasonably question whether Schiltz could remain impartial on the matter.

Regarding Tunheim, Woodward contended in the court filing that the judge’s remarks suggested he viewed the charges against the South African national as unwarranted, writing that the statements gave rise to an appearance of bias in immigration-related proceedings. Woodward was the sole government attorney to sign the motions.

Schiltz has scheduled a hearing on the recusal motion against him for November 23. Under judicial ethics rules, federal judges are generally prohibited from publicly discussing pending cases.

The actions in Minnesota follow a similar weekend filing by Woodward seeking to disqualify U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes from a Washington, D.C., trial court case concerning President Trump’s efforts to overhaul a historic public golf course. Reyes rejected that request on Sunday, accusing the Justice Department of utilizing selective quotations to advance a baseless recusal motion.

Legal ethics specialists have noted that formal recusal motions initiated publicly by the government are exceptionally rare. Scholars suggested that rather than seeking private consultations with judges over potential conflicts, the public filings and subsequent social media promotion indicate an intent to challenge judicial authority and question the fairness of rulings issued against administration policies.

These disqualification requests build upon a series of recent actions involving the federal judiciary. Last month, the Justice Department filed a judicial misconduct complaint against all but one of the federal judges in Minnesota, including Schiltz and Tunheim, specifically referencing their participation in the press report. Additional ethics complaints have also been submitted against judges in other jurisdictions.

Separately, the Justice Department sued all 15 federal judges in Maryland over a standing order that temporarily blocks the immediate removal of immigrants challenging their deportations, though a Virginia judge dismissed that lawsuit and an appeal is currently pending. President Trump and senior administration officials have also publicly criticized individual judges by name and called for impeachments.

In response to these tensions, legal scholars and judicial bodies have pointed to established guidelines regarding judicial commentary. The Judicial Conference, the policy-making entity for federal courts, issued an advisory opinion in February stating that ethical principles permit judges to speak or write concerning judicial independence and to advocate for the rule of law. The conference’s Committee on Codes of Conduct also indicated there is room for the measured defense of judicial colleagues against attacks that threaten judicial independence.